“Technology killed criticism,” says Morgan Meis in On the State of Criticism 2011. Everyone’s a critic now, writing reviews on Amazon and blogs, and ranting or raving on Twitter. Netflix, Pandora and Amazon make personalized recommendations based on algorithms, decreasing our reliance on professional critics.
Meis sees this loss of authority for critics as an opportunity for them to share their experience and love of art, rather than merely judge it.
“The death of the critic-as-authority is the birth of another kind of criticism . . . the kind that doesn’t rely on authority and judgment, Romantic criticism.”
Romantic criticism “does not stand outside the work of art, but stands alongside, maybe even inside, the work of art, participating in the work in order to further express and tease out what the artist already put there.” The critic’s role is to help us experience art. Meis calls this generous criticism. “It wants to make experience bigger, it wants to make each work of art as rich as it can possibly be.”
Imagine the critic’s relief. Instead of reading a book or viewing an artwork and knowing your opinion is one that could make or break its success in the marketplace, you’re now free to share your experience, put the work in context and enlighten your readers.
Meis’ romantic generous critic reminded me of Arthur Danto, longtime art critic for The Nation and philosophy professor at Columbia University. When I was a volunteer at the National Gallery one of our educators suggested I read Encounters and Reflections: Art in the Historical Present; later I read Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective
Danto’s writing and NGA lectures were enthralling and thought-provoking. He showed me new ways to see, think about and experience art. While drafting this post I wondered if I remembered him correctly, but was reassured after reading this from Denis Dutton, founder of Arts & Letters Daily — a site I can lose hours in:
“That Danto is a critic who knows art and its history, and that he is a skilled philosopher go almost without saying, but this alone cannot account for the attractiveness of these essays. There is an element here which, curious to remark, many contemporary critics either lack or won’t betray: Danto adores art. This means that when he likes something, he can carry his reader away with the enthusiasm, as he does with Warhol or with something so simple as a Raphael drawing of a head and hand. Moreover, his tastes are broad, and celebrate as much the present instant in art as its historical past.”
Danto is a romantic and generous critic. What about bloggers? Are we romantic and generous bloggers? Do we pass judgment on our subjects or do we share our experience and love of them, and try to make them richer? The latter doesn’t mean we’re Polyannas oozing positivity; we mete out tough love too.
Many of us in the association blogosphere might be accused of being too critical or judgmental about associations. Yes, we criticize, but it’s to try to push the conversation further, to make associations a richer experience. We’re thinking out loud together. We wouldn’t blog about associations, leadership and community if we weren’t fascinated by those subjects. As a writer I may be on the outside, no longer working in an association, but I still consider myself part of the community because, well, I love it.
I can only dream of being a thinker and writer like Danto, a wannabe art historian’s dream. But I can continue to share my love and knowledge with others. I admit, I’d love to spark “hmm, fascinating” in a reader’s brain every now and then. But I’m not here to be an authority or pass judgment. I’m here for the love of it all — conversation, wild ideas, community, expression, writing. I’m sharing my experience, love and passions in my own way.
Adam Kirsch, senior editor at The New Republic, defines a critic as “one who says something true about life and the world. The critic’s will is not to power, but to self-understanding, self-expression, truth.” A critic’s writing shows “a mind working out its own questions.” That sounds like many bloggers I know and the blogger I aspire to be.
Association Brain Food 
I try to word my reviews (if I don’t care for parts of the book) as loving criticism as it states in the Bible. It’s no good to shoot down creativity if the artists confidence is frail, but to help the artist see what they can do to improve it, if I don’t like it.
Of course, I carefully choose what books to review because I hate doing all negative reviews and so I research the author and the book before I accept the job.
LikeLike
I like your approach. I read recently about how first-time authors can really be thrown into a writing funk after reading negative reviews, sometimes never getting up the spirit to write a second book. What a loss for the world! A strange comparison: I used to help out at homebrew beer competitions and many judges (the good hearts) took care to make evaluations that would help the brewer, for example, suggesting how to improve the batch next time, instead of only pointing out the flaws.
Thanks, Nikole, for commenting and sharing this on Twitter!
LikeLike
A critic, to me, has to be educated. Otherwise, you’re just a hater (pardon the informal language use).
Critics should be listened to because they’re presumably coming from a place where they truly know art or how something can be improved.
Haters usually talk out of jealousy or ignorance. They should be ignored.
I hope the web can give rise to more critics and fewer haters.
LikeLike
Good point, Sam. The web is a platform for those who are knowledgeable, thoughtful and “loving” about their topics — amateur critics who previously didn’t have a way to share their insight. Sure, the haters have the same access, but, like you, I hope those with good intent outshine them. Thanks for bringing that up.
LikeLike
This is so true, yet so rarely understood. It’s why there’s a difference between reading Roger Ebert’s review and just checking a movie’s number at Rotten Tomatoes.
LikeLike
Good example. There is so much crap on the web, including reviews. Just like in real life, on the web we have to figure out whose opinion we can trust and go with that. It’s fun to find new brains to follow! Thanks, Jay, for adding that.
LikeLike